This is the underlying principle that the French philosopher Montesquieu used to develop the Separation of Powers Doctrine, which America's founding fathers applied when they created our three branches of government. In Montesquieu's time, the 18th century, European society was divided by class. Montesquieu was not interested in eliminating conflict between classes, since he considered class rivalry a sign of health in a democracy. Instead, he envisioned a system where by sharing power, the classes would have the opportunity to advance their interests in a civilized forum, while at the same time checking each other's extremes so as to advance the common good.
Comprehending Montesquieu's logic in contriving the Separation of Powers Doctrine is facilitated by knowing his first book, Persian Letters. In that classic appears the tale of the Troglodytes. The Troglodytes were a people who chose to be completely governed by their self-interest, thus their motto, "I will live happy." Without any concern for the common good, the Troglodytes' self-centered agenda led to families being destroyed, their economy ruined, property lost, and the population ultimately decimated by a plague. The main theme of the story is that virtue and liberty are inseparable. If the government ceases to be virtuous, freedom will disappear. This thinking is a prelude to the Separation of Powers Doctrine in that the purpose of the checks and balances is to maintain public virtue.
Montesquieu's book, Spirit of Laws argues that there is only one way to preserve liberty, and that is by having a government where "power stops power." In a warning against monopolizing the three branches, he states that liberty is lost when, "the same man, or the same body of princes, or of nobles, or of people exercise these three powers." Montesquieu also claimed that even if one clique held both the executive and legislative branches, that it would suffocate liberty.
Clearly in our day, power is not shared by the classes as both Republicans and Democrats have sold out the poor to pander to the interests of corporate America, the upper class. This has been the case in just about every piece of legislation passed from 2001 through 2006. The irony is how politicians spin their legislation, sometimes termed corporate welfare, as being pro-business. The propaganda is that unless politicians cater to the insurance, oil, credit industries, etc..., as though they are mystical gods who must be paid the appropriate homage, the economy won't be able to function. Big business has taken Ayn Rand's economic philosophy from Atlas Shrugged and applied it politically to extort laws that are in their favor. "Play by my rules or I'll take my ball and go to China," would be the appropriate motto of big business in America today, and its so-called pro-business politicians who have made that possible. If anyone wants to know exactly how working conditions would be without government regulation, please read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle,whichdepicts the horrors of meat packing in Chicago in the early twentieth century.Or,look at any of the sweatshops run by American corporations in the Third World.
Americans need to understand how dangerous it is to put all their eggs in one basket and let one political party run the country. During the Bill Clinton years, we saw that with a Republican Congress and a Democratic president, our government operated much more efficiently than it did under the all Republican reign from 2001 through 2006. Although Bush and his fellow Republicans espouse the virtue of fiscal conservatism, they simply could not restrain themselves from the prospect of having it all. Whatever the rhetoric on balanced budgets was in the past, their human nature trumped their ideology. This will be a costly lesson for Americans to learn as government spending has skyrocketed, while tax cuts by the same leadership have reduced federal revenue by billions of dollars. The result is massive deficits that must eventually be paid back with interest. Of course it's not those responsible for this mismanagement who will suffer, but rather the poor, who are more dependent on an efficient government, because they rely to a greater degree on its services.
We are now facing problems in both the credit card and mortgage industry. The mortgage industry gets more publicity for its problems, because the result is people losing their homes to foreclosure. Now, all of a sudden, we hear our politicians are trying to address these issues through new legislation, such as freezing interest rates. Where have they been?
Are we to believe that the government is unaware of what goes on in each of these multi-billion dollar industries? Where's the oversight? We don't regulate how money is loaned? The loan shark is one of the cornerstones of organized crime, yet there's no rules governing interest by our credit card and mortgage industries? Rather than point out to the public how they failed to enforce existing laws to prevent this crisis from occurring, politicians claim we need more laws. Since both political parties are dirty with the money they've been given to look the other way, they are not going to “check” each other and acknowledge their combined failure to oversee these industries.
